From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751298AbVI1Qul (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751417AbVI1Qul (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:41 -0400 Received: from omx3-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.20]:32714 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298AbVI1Qul (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:50:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:49:32 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: KUROSAWA Takahiro Cc: taka@valinux.co.jp, magnus.damm@gmail.com, dino@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] Re: [PATCH 1/3] CPUMETER: add cpumeter framework to the CPUSETS Message-Id: <20050928094932.43a1f650.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20050928075331.0408A70041@sv1.valinux.co.jp> References: <20050908225539.0bc1acf6.pj@sgi.com> <20050909.203849.33293224.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20050909063131.64dc8155.pj@sgi.com> <20050910.161145.74742186.taka@valinux.co.jp> <20050910015209.4f581b8a.pj@sgi.com> <20050926093432.9975870043@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <20050927013751.47cbac8b.pj@sgi.com> <20050927113902.C78A570046@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <20050927084905.7d77bdde.pj@sgi.com> <20050928062146.6038E70041@sv1.valinux.co.jp> <20050928000839.1d659bfb.pj@sgi.com> <20050928075331.0408A70041@sv1.valinux.co.jp> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.4.9; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Takahiro-san wrote: > This seems good for me. > I'd like to make sure that tasks in CPUSET 2a and CPUSET 2b actually > have the cpumask of CPUSET 1a. Is this correct? Oh I think not. My primary motivation in pushing on this point of the design was to allow CPUSET 2a and 2b to have a smaller cpumask than CPUSET 1a. This is used for example to allow a job that is running in 1a to setup two child cpusets, 2a and 2b, to run two subtasks that are constrained to smaller portions of the CPUs allowed to the job in 1a. How would hacking cpuset_cpus_allowed() help here? -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401